Chamberlain's Lack Of Appeasement Was A Mistake

History Homework -
“Appeasement was a mistake.” Do you agree? Explain your answer.
It could be argued that appeasement was a mistake because Hitler would have been defeated if Chamberlain had intervened at an earlier stage; for example, if Chamberlain had shown greater threat and opposition in response to Hitler’s occupation of the Rhineland, Hitler would most likely not have proceeded in his plans to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia. Indeed, if Chamberlain had not allowed Hitler to reclaim the Rhineland, not only would Hitler have felt discouraged to further disobey the Treaty of Versailles, he would not have regained the useful coal, steel and iron resources of the area. This meant that Hitler was harder to stop as he expanded more and more, and

that when Britain finally took a stand, Germany had already begun benefiting from the resources it reclaimed from the reoccupation of the Rhineland.
Furthermore, another reason that appeasement was a mistake was because Chamberlain had misjudged Hitler’s character. In hindsight, it seems foolish that a man such as Hitler was thought by any established politician to be trustworthy, but Chamberlain was an honest man and regarded others as such. The policy of appeasement seemed a clear way to satisfy a threatening European power without entirely neglecting the country being annexed. However, this strategy would have only worked if Hitler kept his word. Indeed, it seemed that Chamberlain cherished the agreement more than the other man involved, as soon enough, the rest of Czechoslovakia was seized along with Sudetenland. Moreover, by utilising appeasement as opposed to more forceful methods, Chamberlain reinforced the idea that Britain was weak in its ability to deal with foreign conflict, a concept that first arose due to the many failures of the League of Nations. This meant that Hitler was effectively allowed to proceed in his pursuit of a larger empire with little to no resistance on Britain’s part.
However, it could be argued that appeasement was the right policy for Britain to follow because it reduced the threat of Russia, whom many deemed at that point to be more dangerous than Hitler. Through the general direction of Hitler’s progressive occupation of Europe, the trend that appeared was that he was undoubtedly heading eastwards. By enabling Germany to continue seizing more land, it was hoped that Germany’s gained strength would help Britain and France to fight against Russia, a country with a Communist dictatorship in power. This dictatorship threatened all of Europe at the time, and so the more favourable view was that Germany would be a useful ally against this threat. Indeed, as Hitler did not appear to be encroaching on France’s land (in fact, he was venturing in the opposite direction), Russia was a larger threat to Europe than Germany. This meant that, in the circumstances, it appeared that it was wiser to allow the strengthening of one threat in the hopes that it may combat a larger threat.
Finally, appeasement was the right policy because it ensured that another World War would not be fought over an insignificant issue that could be resolved by other means.

After the tragedy that was the First World War, Britain was too scarred by the wounds left from the fighting that another war over the occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia was out of the question. As Phillip Larkin’s memorable poem, ‘MCMXIV’, professes: “Never such innocence, / Never before or since, / As changed itself to past / Without a word”. The First World War had such an impact on Britain that they refused to look at war the same way. Chamberlain was one of the majority of Britain’s public figures who did not wish to declare war upon any country without trying any other means necessary beforehand. Moreover, Britain’s physical detachment from the conflict (being isolated as an island) may have contributed to its inability to truly sympathise with the issue and value it as important enough to risk war over. This meant that the majority of people in Britain at the time agreed with Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement as it offered an alternative to the possibility of war, something that many were opposed to after the horrors of the previous

one.
In conclusion, although it could be argued that appeasement was beneficial, it was the wrong policy for Britain to follow. This is because it was not as effective as Chamberlain had intended and was ultimately unable to prevent the Second World War from occurring. Germany’s power did not result beneficially for Britain as Russia was rightfully worried that Britain would not defend them in the probable case of occupation, and so formed the Nazi-Soviet Pact in August 1939. This pact meant that Germany had one less threat to hinder it in the seizure of further countries, and Britain had lost an ally. Furthermore, the eventual declaration of war in September of 1939 proved that Chamberlain’s efforts were essentially fruitless as over 60 million deaths were caused by the Second World War despite Chamberlain’s endeavours to avoid it. Appeasement also allowed time for Germany to strengthen its armed forces, meaning that theoretically, there could have been a reduced death toll if action were taken sooner. Overall, I agree with the statement because, in hindsight, the extent of the impact of the Second World War could have been reduced if action had been taken at an earlier stage.